@55381:Do a google image search for chibi - it's an art style. It's meant to be cute, not realistic - and I hope you agree that this IS a cute picture even if you don't favor the character it portrays.

@55400:No one implied that this was anatomically correct. If you don't enjoy this art style and/or this fictional character and/or the creator(s) involved, I hope you seek out pictures you DO find pleasing - either here or elsewhere. (Life is hard - find enjoyment while you can!)

@55403:PS:
You however actually did imply something without any evidence to support that: That I am ignorant. My ignorance or my lack of ignorance doesn't have anything to do with our topic anyway though. That's just a change of the subject in "ad hominem" style.

@55404:The whole point of this particular art style is to be anatomically incorrect as far as head size.
@55405:Your comments "appeared" ignorant of the chibi art style - and since that art style was a topic of conversation it was relevant.

...but this is getting too pedantic, even for my taste. If we're all really so intent on arguing this further (myself included) we should go jerk off, because we're clearly wound way too tight.

tl;dr If you don't like the picture stop bumping it to the top of the list.

So what? If an art style is incorrect then it is incorrect. That doesn't debunk my statement as an incorrect statement. It only supports it.

So what? When something/someone appears to you to be somehow, it's your subjective opinion. And the problem with subjective opinions is that they are not convincing. So why even mention them? In this case mentioning them only changes the subject. And at the same time mentioning an opinion about the personal properties of your opponent leads to an "ad hominem" argument which counts as a logical fallacy.

The art style and your discussion opponent (in this case me) are two different subjects. The art style might be relevant, but not your discussion opponent. By accusing your opponent of not knowing stuff you change the subject from the first one to the second one. An that pretty much summarizes what an "ad hominem" fallacy is. If you want to win an argument you have to attack the opponent's opinion and not personally attack the opponent.

You mentioned that the art style AIMS at doing such anatomically incorrect distortions. But that doesn't make my statement that it IS anatomically incorrect false. The is no contradiction between those two statements. Your statement doesn't attack my statement. It complies with my statement.

@55411:No one truly "wins" an argument - and I don't wish to argue. I wish you had said you were specifically critiquing the art style here:
@55361:We could have spent this time discussing the art style, instead of discussing the discussion of art style. Now we're discussing the discussion of the discussion of the art style - how meta is that?